15

HOW DO WE ASSESS FOR

“SUCCESS”? CHALLENGING
ASSUMPTIONS OF SUCCESS
IN THE PURSUIT OF INCLUSIVE
ASSESSMENT
Sarah O’Shea and Janine Delahunty

Introduction
“Success” at university is largely focused on calculations of “high” marks or
grades derived from assessable academic activities. While there is a sense of per-
sonal achievement in “passing” assessments, these measures of academic success
alone have become too narrow; yet they remain largely unquestioned within
the higher education environment. The relationship between “success” and
grades needs further interrogation, particularly for students who have returned
to university after a significant break in formal study. For older learners, “suc-
cess” is not exclusively academic, but often defined through complex combi-
nations involving life experience and alternative rationales for participating
in university.
In a recent national study, we asked students how they personally defined
“success” at university. Their answers were illuminating, revealing that “suc-
cess”, as a taken-for-granted term, is very diverse in its application including how
it is perceived and valued. Surprisingly, in educational literature there is limited
explicit focus on how the concept of success is individually understood, trans-
lated, and enacted. Drawing attention to this, the chapter provides a summary
overview of how success was constructed and defined through the reflections of
first in family students. Only by focussing on, and unpacking the value of, higher
education participation as defined by students themselves, can we begin to trou-
ble the ways in which assessment is traditionally constructed and designed. In
revealing tensions around understandings of “success”, this chapter is designed
to prompt thinking about how, as teaching and learning practitioners, we might
redefine assessment practices that consider success in more multi-faceted and
inclusive ways.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003293101-19
168  S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

Success as a construction
Understandings of academic success are largely unquestioned within higher
education. Success has been problematically constructed as academic achieve-
ment, progression through a degree, overlayed with expectations of a linear,
uninterrupted barrier-free passage to completion armed with a knowledge of
the implicit “rules” of the game (Bathmaker, Ingram, and Waller 2013; Tinto
2021). However, given the diversity of our student populations and the some-
times complex circumstances they exist within, unpacking and deconstructing
taken-for-granted notions of “success” can help identify and eliminate poten-
tial barriers. Rather than perceiving “success” as a contractual arrangement that
requires judging the value or merit of a student’s performance, more nuanced,
individualised notions of success are needed.
Research and literature on success indicate highly subjective variations in
meaning. Conceptions of academic success can deviate between teaching staff and
students, such as polarised understandings on barriers to achieving success as high-
lighted by Dean and Camp (1998). These authors identified how academic staff
considered success to be determined by students’ attitudes and motivations, while
for students, it was the external factors that were the biggest influencers on success,
with success more akin to “general life satisfaction” (10). In a similar vein, Tinto
(2021) highlights the internal-external tension of students “wanting to persist” as
distinct from “being able to persist” (7) and the responsibility of institutional sup-
port in removing barriers that thwart students’ actual capacity to achieve.
Whilst research indicates some of the complexities of what constitutes success,
we argue that this complexity is exacerbated for students from equity backgrounds
accessing various pathways into higher education. For example, pathways such
as open access colleges may emphasise non-normative measures of student suc-
cess or academic achievement. In recognition of this variety, there have been
calls for alternative understandings or measures of success, which “acknowledge
the unique complexities, challenges and material conditions” of specific student
groups (Sullivan 2008, 629). Undoubtedly perceptions of success are intertwined
with preconceived ideas of what constitutes a “good” grade or the ways in which
success is measured (Yazedjian et al. 2008). This chapter seeks to consider how
alternative conceptions of success should inform and influence the objectives
and design of assessment items. Building upon previous publications which have
unpacked notions of academic success from the perspectives of equity intersected
learners, the term success cannot be assumed to have a common meaning nor be
embedded within normalised discourses of meritocracy (Delahunty and O’Shea
2019; O’Shea and Delahunty 2018).

Data collection and analysis

Given the implicit complexity of “success”, this chapter now explores how stu-
dents themselves considered and articulated notions of success to better under-
stand implications for constructing assessment in university. The research
 How do we assess for “success”? 169

TABLE 15.1  Equity factors

Equity factors Survey respondents (n = 208) Interviewees (n = 20)

First in family 208 100% 20 100%

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 9 4% 1 5%
Disability 11 5% 4 20%
Low socio-economic status (LSES) 71 34% 11 55%
Rural/Isolated 67 32% 3 15%
Non-English-speaking background 12 6% 3 15%
(NESB)
Refugee 2 1% 1 5%
TOTAL self-selected equity 380 183% 43 215%
factors
Other (e.g., extra information/ 208 100% 20 100%
clarification of category(ies))

was conducted under the auspices of an Australian Research Council (ARC)

Discovery Project (2017–2021) that explored the ways in which students who
are the first in their family to attend university enacted persistence during their
undergraduate studies. A total of 376 students across eight institutions partici-
pated in either interviews or surveys, designed to encourage broad reflection on
experiences of sustaining their studies in often complex and challenging circum-
stances. All participants were asked if they regarded themselves as “successful
students” and this chapter focuses on a selection of qualitative data from 228
participants who responded to the question: How do you define success at university?
Self-selected demographic details in Table 15.1 highlight the diversity of equity
factors of this mostly female (85%), mature-aged group (83% aged 21+) as chosen
by participants (indicated by >100% totals).
Responses were imported into NVivo and line-by-line coding was under-
taken to unpack how success manifested and specifically how these under-
standings informed persistence in higher education. These learners reflected
upon a broader conceptualisation of success including as a form of validation,
a highly emotional or embodied state as well as understandings of failure and
what “success was not”.
Themes generated defined success variously with thematic analysis identifying
subjective alternatives to success which were: success as personal outcomes (55%),
learning or gaining/applying knowledge (20%), and what success is not (7%); with
the theme “grades/passing” comprising 16%. The following section briefly high-
lights these themes, before providing implications for assessment for inclusion.

Alternative conceptions of success

This study contested the often unquestioned concept of success and assumed
common or global definitions, with participants evoking instead a range of emo-
tional and structural considerations. Alternative conceptions of success became
apparent through the absence of reference to “marks” or “grades” (and their syn-
onyms) by over half the participants (n = 118). Interestingly, in the grades/passing
170  S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

theme, general reference to “passing” (e.g., “scores that reflect your best effort”,
“marks I’m proud of ”) was made by 23 participants, rather than as a specific goal
(e.g., “success is achieving high grades/GPA/distinction average”). Thus, we turn
attention to the more contested nature of success. These first in family learners
repeatedly linked their own success to the satisfaction they gained, often artic-
ulated in emotional terms through the embodiment of persevering or achieving
personal goals, rather than through detached academic measures:

I finished my degree, that is my measure of success, I made it through

many obstacles including physical/mental/financial health challenges
(Female Survey Respondent, 31–40, Disability, LSES)

Success is finding something that you passionate about, could be easy or

hard and going after it until you get it. That’s success
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 2nd year, Refugee)

This is not to say that grades or marks were considered unimportant or irrelevant.
Interestingly, for some students grading provided a form of “external” validation
of their entitlement to be enrolled and many were performing as well as, if not
better, than they had anticipated. Similar to others, Danielle was unsure about
openly defining herself as successful, preferring instead to defer to external valida-
tions gained from lecturers, peers, and assignment feedback as “proof ” of her suc-
cess in achieving an acceptable academic standard, as the following insight shows,

Having lecturers say …“This piece of work was so good that you should
actually use it in real life, like submit that to a government committee”;
that’s the best feedback that I could ever get in my life and then that
makes me think that yeah, you know, I am actually really successful in
what I’m doing
(Danielle, 32, 3rd year, Online, LSES)

Significantly, it was the additional, personalised feedback that helped Danielle to

meaningfully translate her marks. This is an important consideration for equity
students who may experience a level of uncertainly about how “success” is trans-
lated within a university setting especially if grading is not contextualised within
constructive feedback. Notably, receiving some kind of validation was how these
students measured their successful selves. As first in family, without familial biog-
raphies to draw upon, it is common to feel like an outsider or experience imposter
syndrome. This sense of dislocation was sometimes revealed via the level of dis-
comfort in identifying as successful, such as Danielle’s unwilling admission,

I don’t really like to toot my horn but looking at what I’ve done and
achieved and how much people have said to me, like, ‘You’re doing really,
really well’. Yes, I do [define myself as successful].
 How do we assess for “success”? 171

There can also be an element of resistance to placing too much emphasis

on grades, even though many participants were self-confessed high achievers.
Instead, a focus on retaining “your sense of self ” is the advice from this female
survey respondent who also admits that,

I do aim for HDs, but I think it’s important to realise that sometimes, not
achieving in line with your expectations is a lesson in humility
(Female Survey Respondent, 31–40, 3rd year)

Repeatedly, there was a delineation between how success was constructed by indi-
vidual learners compared to institutional or political discourses. For these partic-
ipants, success was contextualised and informed by wider social and economic
factors, rather than simply attributed to the meritocratic skill set of the learner. The
dichotomous nature of this term most clearly articulated when participants reflected
on what success was not, or even defining the act of failing in terms of success.

What success-is-not and failure-as-success

The term “failure” was contested by participants. Some students agreed that success
could come from failure and so was not failure at all. For example, withdrawing
from a course was considered a chance to redefine self or focus on another area of
life, rather than “failing”. A number of participants reflected how the act of failing
was key to learning and also, developing as a person, as shown in these statements:

I have only failed one class and then from failing that one class, I have got
distinctions or high distinctions in all my other classes and also that class
when I redid it plus I’m finishing uni which I think is quite an achievement
with two children and working full-time.
(Dyahn, 25, 4th Year, LSES)

Success in the university environment is trying your hardest and passing

well (although I think if you try your hardest and fail the first time but try
again that can still be success).
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 3rd Year, LSES)

Failing was intricately bound up with success, one seemingly could not exist
independent of the other. For some not failing was an indication of success:
“Yeah I guess [I am successful], I’ve never failed anything” (Lisa, 21, 4th year).
However, experience of failure was sometimes a “wake-up call” which acted as
a catalyst for change,

I was going to major in Economics but I actually didn’t do very well with
the prerequisite classes last year so I failed Management and Finance which
was all part of that wake-up call of thinking “Yeah, I’m going to be a lot
172  S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

more happy if I just follow my passion and don’t worry about other people’s
perceptions of me so much.
(Thomas, 20, final year)

Being successful was also defined by what it is not, defying normative assump-
tions of success by taking a particular stance against these. For one student success
was “not about getting a job … it’s about completing something that I never
thought possible” (Heather, 59, final year); for another: “I don’t think success
is 2.5 kids and a house” (Female Survey Respondent, 26–30, 5th year, LSES,
Rural). Other success-is-not definitions included downplaying grades as the
most important measure,

Not just going to university because you have to, but going because you
learn things that make you curious and inspired. It’s not necessarily about
getting great grades or succeeding all the time, but about learning from
your mistakes and becoming more resilient
(Female Survey Respondent, 26–30, 5th year)

I may not have HD marks on paper, but I have HD life experience!

(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 5th year part-time)

Success…is not about living up to the ‘norms’ but to be resilient to tough

paths ahead and to be able to overcome these barriers
(Female Survey Respondent, 21–25, 4th year, Rural)

Considerations for assessment for inclusion

In light of the strong deviation from traditional, measurable indicators as sole
identifiers of success, these first in family participants point us to alternatives
on how success at university and beyond needs to better align to student con-
ceptions. Personal definitions of success far outweigh others, such as gaining
a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment both individually and socially, working
towards personal aims and gaining the respect of others. Being successful was
also identified through the experience of learning, such as being engaged and
active in learning, being self-directed, and being able to apply skills and knowl-
edge. Defining success in terms of “failure” or what it is not can also under-
pin development of alternative forms of assessment which are more learner and
learning-centred, rather than grade-focused.
Undoubtedly, the aim of assessment should be for learning, but equally assess-
ment designed for inclusion should encourage self-motivation, autonomous
learners, and importantly, provide an opportunity to develop collective-minded
individuals who are not solely defined as being in competition with each other.
Grades are inadequate indicators of these qualities and represent narrowness if
these are the sole or foregrounded definition of achievement.
 How do we assess for “success”? 173

Implications for assessment for inclusion

These diverse participants rarely focused on grades alone when defining their
successful student selves, articulating alternative and broad notions of success.
This presents a challenge to higher education institutions, namely, why “meas-
uring” achievement, which fosters a competitive and individualised learning
culture, continues to be highly valued, even while collaboration, communica-
tion, and collective knowledge are being demanded as key competencies for the
future. The following sections explore alternatives to current assessment prac-
tices with a focus on building upon relational aspects to ensure that the student
voice is key to facilitating change to assessment which more accurately reflects
varied and relevant notions of success. This discussion will focus on two main
themes, the need to de-emphasise grades within assessment practices, and the
need to adopt students as partners approaches to involve learners themselves in
the design of authentic and inclusive assessment.

Not grading: A brave starting point

Firstly, the idea of achieving particular grades as the main aim of assessment
needs to be challenged when considering assessment for inclusion. It may be a
brave, even radical, shift to imagine assessment designed without grading, one
which Warner (2020) describes as,

a leap of faith, and there is no guarantee that after the leap, you won’t go
splat, no matter the amount of preparation, enthusiasm, and confidence
you bring to the task
(208)

However, such a shift is needed in order to explore how we might create the best
possible environments in which learning is emphasised, and where each student,
regardless of background, has “equitable opportunities to demonstrate their mas-
tery of course content and skills” (Chu 2020, 164).
Students, released from anxiety associated with a grade judgement of their
performance, are likely to be more willing to exercise creativity, to be more
adventurous and self-identify weaknesses or areas they would like to improve.
Learners, not defined only by meritocracy, may also be more willing to seek
feedback and consequently better understand the value of feedback. They may
even “fail” or perform poorly sometimes, such as many diverse learners who
have to make choices if other life priorities demand attention. There are few
places in the higher education curriculum where learning and failure co-exist
as opportunities for success; however, “failure” can present some of our most
memorable and transformational learning experiences, particularly when failure
is not framed as a source of embarrassment or fear.
Assessment for inclusion, therefore, must take account of intersecting equity
factors that may impact on an assumed linear pathway through a program of
174  S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

study to completion. For many diverse students, the assumption of such line-
arity in their learning journeys is an unrealistic one (see Crawford, Chapter 16;
Delahunty 2022; O’Shea 2014, 2020). Students leading complex lives may need
to miss classes or limit time on tasks due to competing priorities and this should
not be interpreted as lacking in academic abilities or motivation. As adults they
are best placed to make such judgements regarding their commitments or per-
sonal care (Schulz-Bergin 2020), and should not be penalised for the impact that
external pressures place on their time, well-being or capacity to achieve.
Bourke (Chapter 17) emphasises that in many assessment approaches students’
attention is directed “to ‘proving’ what they know and can apply, rather than on
‘improving’ the way they learn” (p. 190). We know that grades-focus does not
incentivise learning, nor motivate students towards deep learning, is not meaningful
nor indicative of the learning taking place (Gibbs 2020; Stommel 2020), does not
allow for failure (Chu 2020), leads to gaming-the-system or corner-cutting (Blum
2020), and does not encompass various goals for learning (Gibbs 2020). This critical
perspective challenges educators to consider how current models of teaching and
assessment that are apparently designed to support students in fact fail to “meet the
needs of diverse students” and “fail to promote equity” (Blum 2020, 227).
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block to assessment for inclusion is assuming
that assessment be coupled with grading. Stommel (2020) is careful to distinguish
assessment and grading as distinctly different things, arguing that “spending less
time on grading does not mean spending less time on assessment” (36) and that
while assessment is inevitable, deeply considering the need to include grading
forces us to question “our assumptions about what assessment looks like, how
we do it, and who it is for” (36). Instead of preconceived grades or meritocratic
rankings being provided, one alternative might be to embed students’ own goals
for the assessment within marking criteria. Providing rich qualitative comments
to contextualise the feedback on execution of the task would be key to such an
approach but equally, a focus on the process of assessment rather than only the
end product is undoubtedly important.
Whatever the approach taken, it is clear that assessment needs to be embedded
within and informed by student perspectives. The next section considers the
necessity of student involvement in designing assessment to ensure inclusivity.
In adopting student-centred approaches, the intent is to address power relations
in the teaching-learning environment and ensure that assessment is embedded
within student perspectives and worldviews.

Students as partners approaches to promote assessment

as partnership
Students as partners (SaP) challenge hierarchical relations of power that tradi-
tional assessment practices often reflect. To counter such power imbalances, SaP
approaches encourage a more equitable experience of education through genuine
partnership. For educators, there are many benefits in taking a relational approach
 How do we assess for “success”? 175

to teaching and learning but this is particularly the case in (re)designing assess-
ment. Adopting a more relational approach foregrounds student perspectives and
recognises that learners are the “best experts in their own learning” (Stommel
2020, 29). As a genuine partnership model, SaP enables educators and institutions
to move beyond opinion-based surveys that may have traditionally included the
“student voice” but retained limited scope for genuine student involvement in
curriculum or pedagogy change. Instead, SaP re-positions students as agentic,
where they can exert their influence (see Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014;
Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014; Matthews 2017). Such repositioning is key
for equity-related issues and can usefully inform an inclusive pedagogy across the
higher education sector (O’Shea, Delahunty, and Gigliotti 2021)
In considering a “marriage” of assessment and inclusion, it makes little sense
not to involve students, who have the most to gain (or lose). Partnerships between
faculty, students, and other stakeholders hold the promise of richer and more
meaningful assessment processes and outcomes, even though participants may
not all contribute in the same ways, all can engage equally through the “collab-
orative, reciprocal process” (Cook-Sather, Bovill, and Felten 2014, 6). Actively
seeking student engagement and collaboration in assessment (re)design not only
raises the potential for enduring change that is meaningful to those for whom it
matters most but also fosters much deeper engagement in learning in addition to
benefits to teaching practice (Healey, Flint, and Harrington 2014).
However, productive student-faculty partnerships are not always easily nego-
tiated in practice, as Dargusch, Harris, and Bearman (Chapter 19) describe.
Power relations need to be acknowledged and explicitly addressed when consid-
ering SaP projects (O’Shea, Delahunty, and Gigliotti 2021). Importantly, Bovill,
Matthews, and Hinchcliffe (2021) set out five key principles for co-creating assess-
ment change using SaP as the approach. This includes developing assessment and
feedback dialogue which is transparent and ongoing; sharing responsibility for
assessment and feedback including acknowledgement that teacher-student power
dynamics and roles will be disrupted; fostering trust through dialogue; nurtur-
ing inclusive assessment and feedback processes; and connecting partnership in
assessment and feedback with curriculum and pedagogy.
At a practical level, a SaP approach could usefully inform the practical devel-
opment of assessment including working with students to develop meaningful
goals/outcomes, assessment formats, the assessment outline/brief and even, the
assessment exemplars. Equally, creating assessment criteria that respond to the
motivations and goals of the specific student cohort would ensure these activities
are meaningful to those involved.

Concluding thoughts
Returning to the broad definitions of success articulated by our first in fam-
ily participants; these prompted us to question the relevance of traditional
assessment and its narrow focus on measurable indicators. Challenging the
176  S. O’Shea and J. Delahunty

exclusionary nature and reward-punishment of grades-focused assessment is

one step towards disrupting these practices. Such necessary disruption facilitates
students from all backgrounds to have equitable opportunities to demonstrate
their knowledge and skill mastery. Engaging students as partners in assessment
and feedback is a next logical step in order to “advance relational pedagogies in
the co-creation of learning, teaching and assessment” (Bovill, Matthews, and
Hinchcliffe 2021, 5).
As a much needed innovation, assessment for inclusion will undoubtedly
present challenges for educators. Some questions demanding consideration
include: How can we build upon alternative non-meritocratic perspectives of
success within assessment practices? How might assessment be redefined for stu-
dents from equity backgrounds to better account for the diversity of their back-
grounds? Exploring these and other related questions, as presented in this book,
will hopefully instigate generative discussions that will rejuvenate assessment
practices to take account of diverse student cohorts and assist in adapting to the
post-pandemic educational environment.

References
Bathmaker, A.-M., Ingram, N., and Waller, R. 2013. “Higher Education, Social Class
and the Mobilisation of Capitals: Recognising and Playing the Game.” British Journal
of Sociology of Education 34 (5–6): 723–743. http://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.
816041.
Blum, S. D. 2020. Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do
Instead). Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Bovill, C., Matthews, K., and Hinchcliffe, T. 2021. “Students as Partners in Assessment
(SPiA)”. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/student-partnerships-
assessment-spia.
Chu, G. 2020. “The Point-less Classroom: A Math Teacher’s Ironic Choice in not
Calculating Grades.” In Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do
Instead), edited by Susan D. Blum, 161–170. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia
University Press.
Cook-Sather, A., Bovill, C., and Felten, P. 2014. Engaging Students as Partners in Teaching
and Learning: A Guide for Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dean, A., and Camp, W. 1998. “Defining and Achieving Student Success: University
Faculty and Student Perspectives.” In the American Vocational Association Convention.
New Orleans, LA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428180.pdf.
Delahunty, J. 2022. “You Going to Uni?”: Exploring How People from Regional, Rural and Remote
Areas Navigate into and through Higher Education. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity
in Higher Education. https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/regional-rural-remote-
navigate-higher-education/.
Delahunty, J., and O’Shea, S. 2019. ““I’m Happy, and I’m Passing. That’s all that Matters!”:
Exploring Discourses of University Academic Success through Linguistic Analysis.”
Language and Education 33 (4): 302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2018.1562468.
Gibbs, L. 2020. “Let’s Talk about Grading.” In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines
Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 91–104. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University Press.
 How do we assess for “success”? 177

Healey, M., Flint, A., and Harrington, K. 2014. Engagement through Partnership: Students as
Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. London, UK: Higher Education
Academy. https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-
partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher.
Matthews, K. E. 2017. “Five Propositions for Genuine Students as Partners Practice.”
International Journal for Students as Partners 1 (2): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.
v1i2.3315.
O’Shea, S. 2014. “Transitions and Turning Points: How First in Family Female Students
Story Their Transition to University and Student Identity Formation.” International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 27 (2): 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09518398.2013.771226.
O’Shea, S. 2020. “Crossing Boundaries: Rethinking the Ways that First in Family Students
Navigate “Barriers” to Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 41 (1):
95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2019.1668746.
O’Shea, S., and Delahunty, J. 2018. “Getting through the Day and Still Having a
Smile on My Face! How Do Students Define Success in the University Learning
Environment?” Higher Education Research and Development 37 (5): 1062–1075. https://
doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1463973.
O’Shea, S., Delahunty, J., and Gigliotti, A. 2021. “Creating Collaborative Spaces: Applying
a “Students as Partner” Approach to University Peer Mentoring Programs”. In Student
Support Services, edited by Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F.
Padró. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3364-4_7-1.
Schulz-Bergin, M. 2020. “Grade Anarchy in the Philosophy Classroom.” In Ungrading:
Why Rating Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan
Blum, 173–187. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Stommel, J. 2020. “How to Ungrade.” In Ungrading: Why Rating Students Undermines
Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 25–41. Morgantown, WV:
West Virginia University Press.
Sullivan, P. 2008. “Opinion: Measuring “Success” at Open Admissions Institutions:
Thinking Carefully about This Complex Question.” College English 70 (6): 618–630.
http://doi.org/10.2307/25472297.
Tinto, V. 2021. “Increasing Student Persistence: Wanting and Doing.” In Student Support
Services, edited by Henk Huijser, Megan Yih Chyn A. Kek, and Fernando F. Padró.
Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5852-5_33.
Warner, J. 2020. “Wile E. Coyote: The Hero of Ungrading.” In Ungrading: Why Rating
Students Undermines Learning (and What to Do Instead), edited by Susan Blum, 25–41.
Morgantown, WV: West Virginia University Press.
Yazedjian, A., Toews, M., Sevin, T., and Purswell, K. 2008. ““It’s a Whole New World”:
A Qualitative Exploration of College Students Definitions of and Strategies for
College Success.” Journal of College Student Development 49 (2): 141–154. http://doi.
org/10.1353/csd.2008.0009.